I look more like a 1/2 strongman 1/2 body builder, if you look at images, so I'm not fat, I'm overall reasonably sized for my height.
Which I do, but you'd call any proof fake, so why bother? I'm literally going to gym after this pointless reply.
You're using BMI, so you will not be taken seriously, BMI only works on a large population, it's impossible to classify a single point using it, and you know that. In fact, they don't use BMI alone as a classifier, the standard now required multiple points of reference, so simply being heavy doesn't make one obese, since that was highly inaccurate, and as you're demonstrating, commonly misapplied.
I'm advocating for reasonably sized people to fit in seats, not landwhales who the Kool-Aid man makes fats jokes about. There's a big difference between someone who is obese, using a useful definition, which BMI isn't, and someone who is built. I'm not getting Ozempic, I don't need it, Ozempic is for people who gave up, not for people who have control over their lives. Ozempic's logo should be a fork full of pasta, since everyone I know on it, is careless, lazy, and refuses to realize the real problem. They won't work out, they won't eat right, they won't take responsibility, and want medication for a will power problem.
I won't continue this thread unless you make useful talking points, so in any case have a lovely weekend.
It is perfect, no, should it be, no. Does this entire concept still run a fowl of reasonable digital liberty and privacy, it's a digital Epstein island. However, instead of making a fuss, lets find a possible solution.
That's a from the bottom of my post, the concept of having to age verify at the OS level is terrible, but if it's going to be forced, finding a reasonably private, less terrible solution is warranted. If we use the top statement
Let's ignore the blanket statement that this is a bad idea, and think about how one might go about solving this problem. Let's also realize there are ways that you could make this robust, not unhackable, just robust.
It's literally just ignoring how bad an idea this is fundamentally so I could discuss a possible solution. What I was trying to say is that instead of whining about how invasive this is because it is, and I mention that at the bottom, let's explore what might be a solution. Realistically, we can throw a hissy fit all we want, but governments don't care, and you can try to fight this in court, which will take years, and you might win, but wouldn't it be a good idea to have some clue what to try to solve this problem in a way that still verifies age, but also maintains privacy?
Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine